The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
20-2031•Drue Chichi Wallace v. Cecil County Fair, Inc.; Don Moore; Jo Ann Bashore; Monica Mason
20-2031Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitJan 21, 2022
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-2031
DRUE CHICHI WALLACE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CECIL COUNTY FAIR, INC.; DON MOORE; JO ANN BASHORE; MONICA
MASON,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
George L. Russell, III, District Judge. (1:19-cv-01802-GLR)
Submitted: September 30, 2021 Decided: January 21, 2022
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, DIAZ, Circuit Judge, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Megan T. Mantzavinos, MARKS, O’NEILL, O’BRIEN, DOHERTY & KELLY, P.C.,
Towson, Maryland, for Appellant. Jeffrey W. Bredeck, ECCLESTON AND WOLF, P.C.,
Hanover, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Drue Chichi Wallace appeals the district court’s order dismissing her action alleging
discrimination in violation of Title II of the Civil Right Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000a, civil
conspiracy in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985, and several related causes of action under state
law for failure to state a claim. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Wallace claimed that her removal from county fairgrounds for possession of alcohol was,
in fact, based on her religion. However, she does not assert that the responsible officials
knew of her religious faith, so she has not established that her removal was a pretext for
discrimination. Moreover, she contends that several of the Defendants conspired to have
her removed, but again, she failed to assert that they knew of her religion. In short, she
alleged no facts from which a discriminatory purpose could be inferred. Accordingly, we
affirm the district court’s order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.